gamersfanonfandomcom-20200215-history
User blog:Parax./...
I know some of you have seen a recently-proposed rule that allows people to adopt stub pages if they aren't edited by the creator for a while. Now, I know how you wouldn't care if you were the one adopting, but look at it from another perspective: What if you owned the page and returned from inactivity to find that someone has taken ownership of a page you recently started to have big plans and ideas for? What if you couldn't get this page back just because you were inactive? As I read, it says that if you haven't edited the page for 14 days, someone can ask you for it. If you don't reply in 14 days, they take the page away from you. I've just created this blog to ask how you would feel if this happened to you. Now, if you have answered my questions with, "I'd find that unfair", but still think the page-adoption should be allowed, then, no offense intended, there is a bit of hypocrisy in the air. And here is why: The new rule, titled "Save Our Stubs", in my own opinion, is a bad idea. I read what the rule would do, and here is the rule's effect if it takes place. #You create a stub page, but are low on ideas. #You go inactive for a while, whether it's schoolwork or being grounded, or something. #After 14 days of not editing the stub, a random guy can just go up to you and ask for your page. #You get a few more days to either say, "Yeah, sure", or "No, please don't take my article". #If you don't answer by those few days (VERY few days), the article is taken away from you. #You come back with huge ideas for the article. #You find out that a user has taken the article and doesn't want to give it back. See, THAT is unfair. And yet, people are SUPPORTING the rule going into effect! Yet we all know that if it happened to YOU, you would get upset. THAT's how there is hypocrisy; because people are supporting someone's article being taken from them, yet they would throw a fit if the same happened to them. The people who support the request mask the unfair claiming of someone's page with, "we're doing it to save the stubs". Wouldn't it be a LOT easier and a LOT less conflict-causing if you just made the stub UNDELETE-ABLE? And the reason I say conflict-causing is because the original creator will NOT be very fond of their article being taken away from them when we could just as easily make the page undelete-able. People are getting all mad at me for expressing my distaste for the rule and for revealing what it REALLY does. Sorry, angry people, but I will continue to oppose the rule unless it means one condition: The person who wants to adopt the page HAS to get permission. That means the owner HAS to say yes before the page is taken away. HELL, we actually made sure that you needed the creator's permission LONG ago when we overturned Page Adoption. This is JUST like it, only with small-time articles. So, people who are trying to silence me, take what I said into consideration. I will say it one last time: Either you change it so that people need the creator's permission before taking the page, or I will refuse to step down. My job here is to keep order and make sure everything is fair; I will not succeed if I'm forced to enforce rules such as this. I know some random guy is going to come here and start saying, "SHADE UR MAKING 2 MUTCH OF A BIG DEEL OUTTA DIS!" But am I? Am I really? Or am I just looking deeper into the topic than everyone else is? In fact, if this rule does pass, I'm going to turn the rule right on the supporters to show them what a crappy decision they made :P Finally, I bring forth one last thing: A vote was passed about a week ago that said that when you're voting, you MUST give a reason for it. People have been exploiting a loophole, saying, "I have my own reasons". Now, I know someone is going to come here and accuse me of attacking Jim, but I am NOT. I just think people need to ACTUALLY GIVE a REASON. When you say, "I have my own reasons", it sounds like there isn't even a reason. So, I'm kindly asking people to actually GIVE a reason.